Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Diavlog comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Dangerous Minds (Ann Althouse & Jim Pinkerton) (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=5205)

Bloggingheads 05-04-2010 09:46 PM

Dangerous Minds (Ann Althouse & Jim Pinkerton)
 

osmium 05-04-2010 10:03 PM

Re: Dangerous Minds (Ann Althouse & Jim Pinkerton)
 
Police suspicious people! I also recommend policing teenagers who don't fit in. People who grow pot. The onanists.

Starwatcher162536 05-04-2010 10:16 PM

Re: Dangerous Minds (Ann Althouse & Jim Pinkerton)
 
Hmmm...this isn't exactly what I was thinking of when I was asking for a deepwater horizon incident diavlog.

The coverage of this (everywhere) has just been awful. There are about a dozen basic facts I can think of off of the top of my head that would be nice to know, that no one is bothering to report on.How is it that I have read like a dozen news stories about this, and I don't even know what type of oil is being spilled? Ugh.

rcocean 05-04-2010 10:46 PM

An excellent Diavlog
 
Good to see a respectful, exchange of ideas on immigration and security outside of the usual cross-fire format.

Baltimoron 05-04-2010 10:47 PM

Re: Dangerous Minds (Ann Althouse & Jim Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536 (Post 161232)
How is it that I have read like a dozen news stories about this, and I don't even know what type of oil is being spilled? Ugh.

That detail is being saved for when the crude starts ripping through the marshland. Then, the "Oil Institute" will tell viewers the verdict is "unclear", or that petroleum, like olive oil, is really good for fresh water fauna and flora.

look 05-04-2010 10:51 PM

Re: Dangerous Minds (Ann Althouse & Jim Pinkerton)
 
What mad genius dreamt up this pairing? I stand in awe. Now, to watch.

look 05-04-2010 10:53 PM

Re: Dangerous Minds (Ann Althouse & Jim Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by osmium (Post 161229)
Police suspicious people! I also recommend policing teenagers who don't fit in. People who grow pot. The onanists.

And really smart guys blogging about sciencey stuff.

listener 05-04-2010 11:00 PM

Re: Dangerous Minds (Ann Althouse & Jim Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Baltimoron (Post 161234)
That detail is being saved for when the crude starts ripping through the marshland. Then, the "Oil Institute" will tell viewers the verdict is "unclear", or that petroleum, like olive oil, is really good for fresh water fauna and flora.

Or that, as a leading conservative spokesperson has already helpfully pointed out, oil is as natural a substance as water.

TwinSwords 05-04-2010 11:01 PM

Re: Dangerous Minds (Ann Althouse & Jim Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by listener (Post 161238)
Or, as a leading conservative spokesperson has already helpfully pointed out, oil is as natural a substance as water.

Or rattlesnake venom.

ImmRefDotCom 05-05-2010 12:01 AM

They already have a consensus
 
Pinkerton says that the feds will get serious when we get a consensus, which he thinks we're moving towards. Not gonna happen.

Most Americans want something to be done about illegal immigration. But, the entire establishment is on the other side: they want the power that mass immigration brings them, together with the money. Plus, it dilutes the power of mainstream America. They aren't going to change their minds. They might change their tactics, but they're still going to keep pushing what they've been pushing.

The way to strike back is for mainstream America to discredit those visible elites who promote mass immigration, such as bloggingheads' own Shikha Dalmia or those who've lied about the Arizona law (a partial list at the link). I don't mean that in the convivial bloggingheads way: I mean that in the "make unemployable" way. The problem is finding anyone else willing to help.

listener 05-05-2010 12:12 AM

Re: They already have a consensus
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ImmRefDotCom (Post 161243)
...it dilutes the power of mainstream America.

No further comment necessary.

TwinSwords 05-05-2010 12:33 AM

Re: Dangerous Minds (Ann Althouse & Jim Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536 (Post 161232)
How is it that I have read like a dozen news stories about this, and I don't even know what type of oil is being spilled? Ugh.

Rachel Maddow examined this question tonight.

nikkibong 05-05-2010 12:41 AM

Re: Dangerous Minds (Ann Althouse & Jim Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by look (Post 161236)
What mad genius dreamt up this pairing? I stand in awe. Now, to watch.

I agree that the pairing had potential, but the DV was a letdown. I never thought I'd say this but: too little Ann. Most of the 'vlog was a basically an interview of Pinkerton. Where was Althouse? Meh.

ImmRefDotCom 05-05-2010 02:24 AM

Re: They already have a consensus
 
In other words, you have no argument why you think that's wrong. Maybe someone else can see if they can come up with one.

In the meantime, I suggest reading this. The author is a former aide to VicenteFox and he describes the interesting thoughts of our friends in Congress he ran into.

listener 05-05-2010 02:36 AM

Re: They already have a consensus
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ImmRefDotCom (Post 161250)
In other words, you have no argument why you think that's wrong. Maybe someone else can see if they can come up with one.

In the meantime, I suggest reading this. The author is a former aide to VicenteFox and he describes the interesting thoughts of our friends in Congress he ran into.

It is the idea of, and the presumption of what constitutes "mainstream America," as well as the stated fear of the dilution of its power, that I thought required no further comment.

listener 05-05-2010 02:51 AM

Re: Dangerous Minds (Ann Althouse & Jim Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 161246)
Rachel Maddow examined this question tonight.

And with her characteristic thoroughness and attention to detail.

Baltimoron 05-05-2010 07:42 AM

A Rational Break in the Slobbering
 
Another interesting factoid and rumination about Faisal Shahzad, et al:

Quote:

There seems to be a pattern of mediocre sons from elite families becoming terrorists. Osama bin Laden's dad was a wildly succesful contractor with close ties to Saudi royalty. Underpants bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's father was a prominent Nigerian banker and one of the wealthiest men in Africa. Perhaps they feel like failures next to their successful dads, and militancy offers a pathway toward self-respect.
Gratefully, the canard about terrorists coming from impoverished families has been smashed to smithereens, too.

Baltimoron 05-05-2010 07:52 AM

Re: They already have a consensus
 
Now, conservatives wake up to the power of vested interests thwarting principled reform! I guess the action committee forgot to buy off the right pundits!

Baltimoron 05-05-2010 08:08 AM

Re: Dangerous Minds (Ann Althouse & Jim Pinkerton)
 
I agree about AA. Invoking JFK was deft.

But, what happened to Pinkerton's brain during that conspiracy rant about the oil spill?! Add that to the list when he's institutionalized.

President Obama is justly criticized for his support for drilling. I take no joy in this incident, or feel relief that Schwarzenegger revoked his support for drilling in Californian waters. But, this incident is a corporate mistake, not a natural disaster. Disaster relief is a government bailiwick. BP is a villain - and seemingly incompetent - and presidents aren't in the job, to bail out criminals. I thought we cleared that up with TARP! So, I ask Pinkerton, is government supposed to wrack its brain devising strategies for future corporate incompetence and villainy? Is the administration just supposed to wait for the next screw-up? Or, perhaps, should it be pro-active and stop probable mistakes waiting to happen, like drilling in waters where other industries mine sea fauna and guaranteeing arcane financial instruments?

Stapler Malone 05-05-2010 09:55 AM

Re: They already have a consensus
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by listener (Post 161251)
It is the idea of, and the presumption of what constitutes "mainstream America," as well as the stated fear of the dilution of its power, that I thought required no further comment.

"Real Murkins ain't brown"

Ottorino 05-05-2010 11:38 AM

Re: Dangerous Minds (Ann Althouse & Jim Pinkerton)
 
Ann Althouse. Sexiest woman who's ever been on bloggingheads.tv. Her essence, her mind.

TwinSwords 05-05-2010 12:03 PM

What's ten days between wingnuts?
 
I love how, while Pinkerton and Althouse were speculating wildly about the reasons for Obama's alleged slow response to the catastrophe in the Gulf, Pinkerton remembered that the oil spill occurred on April 10, fully a week and a half before it actually did

Could it be that their perception that Obama waited a long time to react has something to do with the fact that the incident occurred a full ten days after they thought it did?

Maybe if they knew the date the incident occurred, their speculation about the promptness of the response would be more compelling.

BornAgainDemocrat 05-05-2010 02:48 PM

A Nation Built by Immigrants?
 
I'd like to take issue with the oft-repeated cliche that America was "built by immigrants," which both Ann and Jim let pass without comment.

In the first place, I would point out that most of the social progress that was made in this country occurred in the decades following the end of mass immigration in the 1920's. It was only then that women's suffrage was fully established and the political forces built to the point that Francis Perkins could get her legislative agenda through Congress: the end of child labor, wage and hour laws (40 hour week), unemployment insurance, Social Security, occupational safety, etc.

The period of high immigration (1880-1920), the so-called Gilded Age and the Roaring Twenties, was a period of economic regress so far as ordinary Amricans were concerned. Wages declined, hours increased (14 hour days, sweat shops, industrial strife) until finally popular political pressure (and the Great Depression) overcame the interests of big business, which supported wholesale immigration.

Furthermore, it was the 30 years between the New Deal and the 1965 Immigration Act that America's immigrant population was fully assimilated into American culture. This was the generation that fought World War II, in both Europe and the Pacific, and then came home to establish the middle-class American Dream as an inclusive ideal for all Americans, not just the lucky few who made it big. And, finally, it was during this period that the Civil Rights revolution took place.

As for the period between 1600 and 1880, it was not immigration in general but Protestant immigrants from Great Britain and northern Germany who built the economy and established our egalitarian institutions and democratic ideals. (African Americans made enormous contributions, too, of course, except they were not immigrants but slaves who came involuntarily.) And it was primarily Protestant Americans (with some Catholic help, primarily from Ireland) who fought and won the Civil War, thus ending slavery and establishing the idea that economic and political liberty belong to all Americans, not just the propertied few. It is simply a historical fact that Jews, Asians, and people of Latin American descent played a very minor role in all these developments.

As for the current period, it is very much like the Gilded Age so far as most ordinary Americans are concerned: a period of economic regress, of lower real hourly wages, a longer workweek, deteriorating working conditions, labor disorganization, and rising racial and ethnic tensions. The main difference is that Jews and Asian Americans have joined the ruling elites, where they have played a significant role in passing our current trade and immigration laws, which are driving these trends.

As for who is responsible for these developments and what they portend for the future, I would like to emphasize the outsized role played by Jewish (strictly speaking Ashkenazie) Americans, since theirs was far and away the most influential voice in establishing our current trade and immigration policies. No doubt their motives were honorable. They wanted to help poor working people in countries oversees (in the case of Nafta and Gatt) and to build a multiracial society in which their own place in it would not stick out so far. Going forward however I doubt that these policies will continue to work in their favor. The new immigrant groups coming into America are far more anti-Semitic than Americans of European origin have ever been. (I am not talking about our pre-war Anglo-Saxon elite.) It therefore becomes an open question of how much longer the majority of ordinary Americans will continue to be committed to the safety and security of the State of Israel, to choose one crucial example, and to the sacrifices which that commitment entails. This is a serious consideration, for American Jews especially, which I think I am entitled to point out as a steadfast friend and supporter of Israel. My record is clear in this regard. But I am an old man and my generation -- a predominantly Protestant generation -- is getting old and will soon pass away.

So let me say this: If I were in Jewish shoes (where I often put myself) I would be worrying how long the next generation of ordinary Americans, white, black, and brown, will continue to feel the same way? Right now this class of people has no real friends in high places. That is perfectly obvious. Maybe it is time American Jews took their side. God knows they need help, someone to champion their interests for a change.

And another thing: why don't the proponents of mass immigration pay more attention to the effects it has on the countries from which these immigrants come? Is it really a good idea for the most talented and energetic members of a poor country to pick up and move to America instead of staying to build a better society at home? What about the majorities left behind? Nobody thinks about them either. Look at the statistics.

I know these are controversial positions. That's the nice thing about being at the end of your life. You have nothing to lose. You can really speak your mind.

ImmRefDotCom 05-05-2010 03:39 PM

A "liberal" Two-fer!
 
Not only are you bigoted against those who speak a certain way, but you think "mainstream America" is a racial signifier. Did you really mean to say that no non-whites are mainstream?

kezboard 05-05-2010 04:41 PM

Re: A Nation Built by Immigrants?
 
Quote:

But I am an old man and my generation -- a predominantly Protestant generation -- is getting old and will soon pass away.
You would have to be incredibly old indeed to be able to characterize your generation as "predominantly Protestant".

dkschwartz 05-05-2010 06:50 PM

Re: WELCOME TO THE NEW AMERICA.
 
If you want to see what the New America will look like go to a slum and look around. Diverse, poverty-stricken and crime-ridden. Hope, you liberals like President Jesse Jackson Jr. and Vice President Luis Guiterrez!

dkschwartz 05-05-2010 06:53 PM

Re: America is and was a European melting pot.
 
Why do we import millions of muslims to America? Are we masochists? Do we want carbombs? Why do we bring terrorism to our shores? especially when 25 million are out of work.

dkschwartz 05-05-2010 06:57 PM

Re: NO NEED FOR IMMIGRATION
 
Mass immigration since 1965 has been the greatest diaster for the United States. In 30 years, the 1965 immigration reform act will be seen as the worst bill ever past in our democracy. It will be seen as the bill that killed America (excuse me: the old America).

LA RAZA and Luis Guitterez and the Hispanic Cacus are treasonists. They look out for latinos not Americans. That's why they want open-borders. They want amensty so that they can get more political power.

WE DON'T NEED ANY MORE IMMIGRATION. WE NEED A BORDER. WE NEED TO DEPORT ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. WE NEED TO END CHAIN MIGRATION. WE NEED TO END THE ERA OF ANCHOR BABIES AND SANCTUARY CITIES.

sorry, I'm a patriot (which to liberals means like state's rights: racist).

dkschwartz 05-05-2010 07:16 PM

Re: Harvard
 
Martha Minow's disgraceful slandering of Stephanie Grace has made me loose so much respect for Harvard. Grace's email was completly reasonable. Her treatment confirms that we live in a PC version of 1984. The left has become our thought police. If you even dare say that there might possibly be some amount of innate difference in average IQ's between whites and blacks you will be destroyed by the PC Thought Police.

If you mention that asian and white children of lower or working class families do far better at school then black children from upper class families you will be destroyed by the thought police who do not care about truth.

If you believe in evoultion as I do it would be insane to think that there would be all these obvious physical/biological differences between blacks and whites and asians and other races (clearly accounted for by adapting to different enviorments), such as skin color, the shape of our skulls, our hair textures, etc. but that there would somehow be no neurological and/or cognitive differences between whites and blacks. That's insane. There are difficult truthes. Either you face them as an adult or your a intellectual child.

Evoultion does not stop at the brain. Africans have their wooly type of hair texture because it helps absorb sweat better than white people's hair. Asians of stockier bodies because it helps retain heat best. The enviorment that africans lived in for thousands of years obviously had effects upon their cognitive abilities. If you accept that there enviorment exsplains why they run faster on average then asians or whites then you can't just say that their enviorment doesn't exsplain less flattering traits like doing worse on IQ tests. This is obvious. Liberals just want to shut down debate.

grits-n-gravy 05-05-2010 09:51 PM

Re: They already have a consensus
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by listener (Post 161251)
It is the idea of, and the presumption of what constitutes "mainstream America," as well as the stated fear of the dilution of its power, that I thought required no further comment.

Listener, I don't think you're listening. You're making a presumption about what his presumption of what constitutes "mainstream America" and the 'dilution of its power'. Can you say, 'epistemic closure'?

ImmRefDotCom 05-05-2010 10:45 PM

Re: They already have a consensus
 
I don't know when this site got infested with ThinkProgress-level time-wasters like all those who've replied to my comments, but let me try to raise the level. Can you think of two major ways (one happening now, one proposed) in which massive illegal immig. results in diminished power for U.S. citizens? List some persons and groups who support said diminution.

listener 05-05-2010 11:24 PM

Re: They already have a consensus
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by grits-n-gravy (Post 161303)
Listener, I don't think you're listening. You're making a presumption about what his presumption of what constitutes "mainstream America" and the 'dilution of its power'. Can you say, 'epistemic closure'?

Grits, having read your comment, I re-read the original post that I commented on, and my response to it to see if I had missed something. You may have a point; perhaps I was too blithely dismissive in my comment. However, I was not questioning so much the specifics of what constitutes "mainstream America" as much as questioning whether such an entity exists at all. The phrase seems so vague to me as to be empty of any real meaning. It smacks to me of hand-waving.

I don't have a strong opinion either way about what to do re: illegal immigration. It seems like a very thorny problem to which there are no simple solutions. I don't pretend to know enough to know what solutions might be the best ones. But to assert that illegal immigration "dilutes the power" of some entity called "mainstream America" just doesn't make any sense to me. At the very least, it is too ambiguous.

And having read the original post over again, I noticed that I had missed the violation of the Lambchop rule in the first sentence of the post's second paragraph. In other words, more hand-waving.

grits-n-gravy 05-06-2010 01:07 AM

Re: They already have a consensus
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by listener (Post 161314)
Grits, having read your comment, I re-read the original post that I commented on, and my response to it to see if I had missed something. You may have a point; perhaps I was too blithely dismissive in my comment. However, I was not questioning so much the specifics of what constitutes "mainstream America" as much as questioning whether such an entity exists at all. The phrase seems so vague to me as to be empty of any real meaning. It smacks to me of hand-waving.

I don't have a strong opinion either way about what to do re: illegal immigration. It seems like a very thorny problem to which there are no simple solutions. I don't pretend to know enough to know what solutions might be the best ones. But to assert that illegal immigration "dilutes the power" of some entity called "mainstream America" just doesn't make any sense to me. At the very least, it is too ambiguous.

And having read the original post over again, I noticed that I had missed the violation of the Lambchop rule in the first sentence of the post's second paragraph. In other words, more hand-waving.


To your point about the term "mainstream America", I agree it's an obscure concept and can carry nativistic overtones depending on how its used. But the main thrust of Dotcom's post was right on point, at least from my perspective. It would seem the 60% of Americans who support the Arizona law are the "mainstream" on this particular issue.

listener 05-06-2010 01:38 AM

Re: They already have a consensus
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by grits-n-gravy (Post 161322)
To your point about the term "mainstream America", I agree it's an obscure concept and can carry nativistic overtones depending on how its used. But the main thrust of Dotcom's post was right on point, at least from my perspective. It would seem the 60% of Americans who support the Arizona law are the "mainstream" on this particular issue.

Thanks for your response. I'm glad to know that we can agree that the concept of "mainstream America" can be problematic.

As for polls, that's often a tricky matter. We tend to believe poll results when they support our own views, and be skeptical of them when they don't. I'm reminded of the "Peanuts" cartoon where Linus is running for class president with Lucy as his campaign manager. She tells him she has the results of the latest polls.

Linus: "I don't believe in polls."

Lucy: "You're leading..."

Linus: "I BELIEVE IN POLLS!"

Also, as you know, much depends upon how questions are worded, and what information is provided or withheld by the pollster.

Having said that, though I haven't found your 60% poll result, the ones I have found do seem to indicate somewhat greater support for the Arizona bill than opposition to it at the moment. But a simple "pro/con" result belies the complexities and nuances that comprise people's thoughts and opinions on such complex matters. I think it remains to be seen how it will play out.

JoeK 05-06-2010 11:17 AM

Foreigners
 
The Salad Bowl at Work [Victor Davis Hanson]
Quote:

For those wondering about the effects of the four-decade experiment with divisive multiculturalism in our schools, consider this anecdote picked up by an NBC affiliate concerning Morgan Hill, Calif.

A few youths were sent home from the local high school for subervisely wearing American-flag T-shirts on Cinco de Mayo. “I think they should apologize,’cause it is a Mexican Heritage Day,” Annicia Nunez, a Live Oak High student, said. “We don’t deserve to be get disrespected like that. We wouldn’t do that on Fourth of July.”

Note the use of “we,” suggesting an ethnic allegiance that trumps the national one; note the equation of a Mexican Heritage Day with the Fourth of July; note the strange idea that the sight of the American flag leads to one being “disrespected”; and, of course, note the action by the school’s administration — banishing the boys for apparently politically incorrect, subversive behavior.

grits-n-gravy 05-06-2010 12:05 PM

Re: They already have a consensus
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by listener (Post 161325)
As for polls, that's often a tricky matter. . . .

Having said that, though I haven't found your 60% poll result . . .

I derived the 60% number from a poll that showed 51% supporting the law and 9% believing it didn't go far enough. So I think it's fair to say at least 60% think the law is a step in the right direction. If Ann is correct that the Arizona law essentially mirrors existing federal law (albeit with greater enforcement bite) then the opponents of the law don't have very much to stand on. I believe the law doesn't go far enough. As one MSNBC commentator remarked, there is one simple way to solve illegal immigration, and this need not be done as part of comprehensive reform: make hiring an illegal a felony. Do that immediately and I don't care if we spend the next 12 months debating comprehensive immigration reform.

Starwatcher162536 05-06-2010 11:33 PM

Re: What's ten days between wingnuts?
 
Reminds me of his comment about there being no booms in the gulf. I think this diavlog has given me insight into Mr. Pinkerton's strategy when discussing environmental issues; Offer up enough stupidity to get people to stop bothering to correct him, so later on newcomers will see that no one is contradicting him and then conclude he must have a point.

Starwatcher162536 05-06-2010 11:36 PM

Re: Foreigners
 
Alot of the most extreme anti-immigration people I know are first generation Americans. I know this goes against the narrative of America being taken over by a buch of brown people, so let's just agree to disagree, okay? At least till someone bothers to find some real data on this.

JoeK 05-07-2010 10:24 AM

Re: Foreigners
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536 (Post 161394)
Alot of the most extreme anti-immigration people I know are first generation Americans. I know this goes against the narrative of America being taken over by a buch of brown people, so let's just agree to disagree, okay? At least till someone bothers to find some real data on this.

Hmm, interesting... Could it be that your acquaintances are bad students or that they missed that day in school when Mexican flag waving was on the agenda?
BTW, the brown people have their name. They are called Mexicans.
One piece of data I will be looking for is the level American people's animosity towards Mexican immigrants and the political salience, or lack thereof, of illegal immigration.
The existence, or lack thereof, of prejudice against Mexicans will tell me how well they are doing (assimilation-wise and otherwise) in the United States.

grits-n-gravy 05-07-2010 12:47 PM

Re: What's ten days between wingnuts?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536 (Post 161393)
Reminds me of his comment about there being no booms in the gulf. I think this diavlog has given me insight into Mr. Pinkerton's strategy when discussing environmental issues; Offer up enough stupidity to get people to stop bothering to correct him, so later on newcomers will see that no one is contradicting him and then conclude he must have a point.

Assuming it's a strategy gives Pinkerton far too much credit. I think he's just a reflexive ideologue. Unfortunately, stupidity works in Amerikka.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:10 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.